SHEIKH NOOR AND ANR. versus SHEIKH G.S. IBRAHIM (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 04-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHEIKH NOOR AND ANR. 
v. 
SHEIKH G.S. IBRAHIM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
AUGUST 4, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 
C Municipal Council attached the property for non-payment of property tax and 
auctioned it-The lady authorized to recover rent purchased the properly in 
auction-Transferred to the present landlord thereafter-Eviction Petition filed 
on the ground of default in payment of rent -
Allowed by Trial Court-
Affirmed by the appellate Court and the High Court-Legality of Auction/ 
D sale-Challenge to-Assigning of rights to recover arrears of rent to 
transferee-Validity of-Held: Burden of proof was on tenants-They had 
filed a complaint before the concerned authorities as well-Jn the absence of 
any evidence/findings of the authorities setting aside the sale, it could be 
presum~d that she acquired a valid title-When transferor assigned the right 
to recover arrears in favour of transferee-landlord, he is entitled to recover 
E the same as arrears of rent-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 109-
Evidence Act. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
'debt due '-Meaning of in the context of Rent Control Legislation. 
Original owner/landlord of the suit property had migrated to 
Pakistan and authorized 'F', a lady, to collect rent on his behalf. Later, 
on failure to deposit due taxes in respect of the property, Municipal 
Council, executed a warrant of attachment and sold the disputed property 
G by public auction. 'F' purchased the said property in the auction sale and 
had transferred the same in favour of the respondent-landlord, the 
transferee and also assigned the right to recovery of arrears of rent, and 
a notice was also issued by the transferor-lady to tenants for payment of 
arrears of rent. Appellant-tenants neither recognized the respondent as 
landlord nor made payment of rent/arrears. Hence a suit for eviction on 
fl 
204 
SHEIKH NOOR v. SHEIKH G.S. IBRAHIM 
205 
grounds of default and for bona.fide requirement was filed by the landlord A 
which was allowed by the trial Court on the ground of default holding 
~ 
the respondent as owner of the property as transferee from 'F'. Eviction 
order was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved, tenants, 
challenged the order by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
B 
It was contended for the appellants that 'F' was only collector of 
rent and not owner/landlady; that the Municipal Council could not attach 
the property in lieu of arrears of municipal taxes; that since the eviction 
sale in favour of' F' was collusive/fraudulent, she did not become the owner 
of the property and she could not convey a valid title to the transferee; c 
that since the property was evacuee property, it could not be sold by the 
Municipal Council; that the sale by Municipal Council was no sale in the 
eye of law; and that arrears of rent prior to sale could not be recovered 
by the transferee as arrears of rent since they were in the nature of debt 
due. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The burden of proof that the sale made by the Municipal 
Council in favour of' F', (a lady authorized by the original owner to collect 
rent on his behalf) was collusive, fraudulent and without observing due 
formalities, was on the appellants. It was for them to prove that she did E 
not become the owner of the suit premises by virtue of sale certificate 
issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council in her favour. Though the 
appellants had challenged the auction sale conducted by the Municipal 
Council by making complaints to the Collector and also the Government 
of Maharashtra, however, there is nothing on record to show that in F 
pursuance to those complaints the sale in favour of 'F' was Sl;t aside. The 
appellants had already chosen the forum for challenging the validity of 
sale in her favour and since the appellants have not stated as to what action 
has been taken by the authorities, it can be presumed that no action for 
setting aside the sale was taken by the Government as well as the Collector. 
Further, in the present proceedings appellants were not entitled to G 
challenge the validity of the sale effected by the Chief Officer, Municipal 
Council. The appellants could have done so by filing a separate suit for 
declaration challenging the sale which they did not do. (209-B, D-EJ 
1.2. Till the auction sale held in favour o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.